Vol. 439 No. 1
13 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if his attention has been drawn to criticism being expressed by those who have applied for TV service from MMDS operators and who have not been supplied with such service within a reasonable time.
22 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he will set up a procedure to investigate complaints from those who are denied access to community TV and who are dissatisfied with the service provided by MMDS operators; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
50 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications whether he has had meetings with those interested in community TV; if not, whether he will have arrangements made to do so; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13, 22 and 50 together.
I am generally happy with the rate of progress of the multipoint microwave distribution system, known as MMDS, throughout the country. I am aware, however, that from time to time criticism is expressed regarding delays in the provision of the service. I have no reason to believe that these delays are unreasonable having regard to the scale of the project. Complaints made to my Department about the service provided by MMDS operators are investigated and the matter is dealt with in liaison with the licensee.
My main concern with regard to the provision of MMDS is the continued existence of illegal retransmission systems which make it very difficult for the licensed operators to penetrate large areas of the country. This, of course, results in delays in the provision of the service for subscribers in the areas concerned.
As the Deputy well knows, community TV is a euphemism for the illegal retransmission of TV signals and I have dealt with this issue on a number of occasions in this House, as have my predecessors. I want to take this opportunity to state again that I have no intention of licensing such systems now or in the future for the reasons given in my reply of 2 November 1993 — columns 587-590 of the Official Report of that day.
I have had meetings with public representatives concerning the operation of illegal TV retransmission systems. I have no plans to meet with those directly involved in such systems.
Countries such as Switzerland receive a rebeaming service from France, Germany, Italy and Austria. If this can be done in Switzerland, why can we not have a similar service here rather than a monopoly MMDS service? I know a person who applied for the MMDS service and paid a deposit but who decided when he had received no reply two months later to send a registered letter cancelling his application and seeking a refund of his deposit. This person has heard nothing since then, five or six weeks later. Does the Minister regard this as a reasonable service by a supplier who has a monopoly in my area?
As I said to the Deputy on a number of occasions — he raised this matter a number of times — the basic problem with the deflector system is that it operates in a part of the ultra high frequency band which has been allocated to Ireland for television news by the Stockholm Treaty, 1961. There is simply not enough frequency space available under this allocation to enable a nationwide network of deflector transmitters to be established and at the same time meet other national requirements, such as the two RTE channels, a possible independent third channel and the proposed Teilifís na Gaeilge. Those who are calling for the licensing of illegal deflector systems are, in effect, asking me to close off options for the future development of domestic television services, something I will not do.
With regard to delays in the provision of the service, I would point out to the Deputy that there has been no unreasonable delay in areas of the country where co-operation has been forthcoming from illegal retransmission systems which are required to terminate their services. I can cite these cases. If the illegal retransmission system were to agree to go off the air for a certain period this would allow other companies to set up their systems in what essentially would be a green field. This has been done in some parts of the country. However, if those operating the illegal retransmission systems refuse to co-operate, those who have the legal franchise can take legal action. People in my part of the country were deprived of a service until such time as the new system was set up because there was no co-operation from the illegal retransmission system. There are two ways of providing a service, the easy way and the difficult way.
If the charge against me is that I have spearheaded a campaign to license community television in accordance with promises made prior to the last general election then I plead guilty.
The Deputy cannot do that, that is the problem.
If that is so, why were those promises made prior to the general election?
The Deputy should ask himself that question.
The charge for the service in Dublin is £70-80 per year. However, because the MMDS operator in Cork enjoys a monopoly I understand the charge in my area is £140 per year. I understand that the Labour Party set up a parliamentary committee to examine this issue with a view to promoting the licensing of community television. Has the Minister told the committee that he has no intention of licensing community television or is there a possibility that community television will be licensed?
My predecessors and I have enunciated Government policy to the Deputy and other Deputies on request and explained why it is not technically feasible to allow deflector systems in Ireland — it has to do with the limited number of frequency bands on the UHF system — and at the same time provide for the ordered development of Irish broadcasting services. People do not seem to realise that this is a technical problem which must be taken into account.
With regard to costs, of course the costs vary in different areas. I would point out that those who hold the legal franchise for the MMDS system must pay VAT and royalties while the illegal retransmission systems do not have any of those outlays.
Is it not——
I call Deputy Gilmore for a final question.
Can I ask a final supplementary? I tabled three questions.
That is a long distance signal.
When will the subscribers to the Cablelink system in Dublin — who have been paying for over a year for a service which they are not receiving — have their normal service resumed instead of the diet of the Children's Channel, menus and notices that appear on screens at present?
If the Deputy wishes to put down a separate question on that matter I will reply to it in detail. I have been seeking to negotiate a solution to that problem for some time and those discussions are continuing.
If the situation is as the Minister describes, why is the Labour Party claiming to have a special committee to solve this problem? Is it purely a public relations exercise to fool the people even further? Is there any possibility that it can achieve any success?
Judging by the number of times the Deputy has raised this matter, there seems to be an information gap between what is possible and what members who are tabling parliamentary Questions are suggesting. What is possible in Switzerland is not possible here for the technical reasons I have outlined.
There seems to be a gap in the Labour Party.
